My favorite argument for the existence of God

[Speedwell]

are you kidding? a whale sonar isnt a sonar? :

Of course it is. Any system which functions in that way can be called sonar. But just because some sonar systems are designed doesn't mean that all of them are. Function is not evidence of design.

 

[lesliedellow]

so even according to evolution i dont see any problem to evolve a car.

Then you cannot have understood a single word which has been said to you.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Right. The 'artifact' just happens to imitate a human being. I still don't see why we can't call it a robot.

A humanoid robot is generally called an 'android'.

The problem with xianghua's questions is that when he talks of an 'artificial human', he doesn't make clear whether he means a humanoid robot or a biological human, e.g. a genetically engineered clone (which would not be considered a robot).

This opacity is understandable, as he seems to be contriving an argument through deliberate equivocation, but it needs to be pointed out.

 

[doubtingmerle]

the flagellum is spinning very well. so im sure that if a car were exist in nature evolution had no problem to explain how it evolved. also dont forget that even scientists dont know how many biological systems evolved and they still claiming that they evolved somehow. so even according to evolution i dont see any problem to evolve a car.

The flagellum is an extension of a single cell. That is quite different from a multi-cellular being making moving gears.

The bacterium uses molecular level forces to move the flagellum. A multi-celled creature would need some method of attaching muscles to the spinning component, which probably is not even possible.

The flagellum is basically a dead extension from the cell similar to a hair. I suspect that as it wears out, fresh molecules are added at the base, much like a weed whacker. Such a design would not work with a gear. If a cog broke, one would be lost.

Again, your problem is building a living watch that grows from a baby watch. If one could do that, then one could simply evolve the code that describes how that watch grows from a baby watch to an adult watch, so that baby watches grow up to be slightly different watches from the mommy watches. But the impenetrable barrier to that scheme is making the mommy watch that has a baby watch that grows up to be an adult watch. Do that first. I contend it is impossible, so why even deal with what ifs that begin with something impossible.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

so the difference between a robot and a creature is the matter that it made from? if not, where is the limit between a robot and a creature? if you cant point out that then you cant claim that an artificial penguin isnt a robot.

It's hard to say - words are like that. When you start dealing with fringe or special cases you often need to come up with new words or categories. In science fiction, humanoid robots are called 'androids', but that implies considerably more independence than robots as conventionally understood.

If you can explain what your point or argument is without these word games, maybe we'd get somewhere.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Function is not the same as purpose, but there is some ambiguity in popular usage which ID attempts to exploit.

Yes; like so many words, it's meaning becomes less clear the closer one looks, because its boundaries are defined by usage and by edge-cases, where it becomes more ambiguous.

It's the same kind of problem as defining a heap - how many grains of sand does it take to make a heap? when does it stop being a heap and become a mound?

 

[Chriliman]

A humanoid robot is generally called an 'android'.

The problem with xianghua's questions is that when he talks of an 'artificial human', he doesn't make clear whether he means a humanoid robot or a biological human, e.g. a genetically engineered clone (which would not be considered a robot).

This opacity is understandable, as he seems to be contriving an argument through deliberate equivocation, but it needs to be pointed out.

Gotcha, thanks. I suppose in either case we could conclude design though. Design that imitates what we see in nature.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Gotcha, thanks. I suppose in either case we could conclude design though. Design that imitates what we see in nature.

For an android, you could conclude design if you could find evidence of manufacture (e.g. artificial materials).

For a genetically engineered clone, it's not clear - if you fix a faulty gene in an IVF embryo through genetic engineering (possible today), does that make the person 'artificial' or 'designed'? If you used genetic engineering to change a gene to double their musculature (as happened naturally with Belgian Blue cattle), does that make them 'artificial' or 'designed'?

How much of them must be different from a natural, unmodified, human for them to count as 'artificial' or 'designed', and what kind of changes count?

If you could design a genome from scratch to produce a humanoid, without reference to human genomes, it would be fair to say that it would be an artificial, designed, humanoid (android?). But if it had human sequences in its genome, how much of its genome would need to be human before it would count as a modified human instead of an artificial humanoid? Suppose only the non-coding DNA was human?

Similar considerations apply to cyborgs (human/machine hybrids), although one might focus on changes within the brain - as it's possible to envisage an artificial body maintaining a human brain.

 

[Chriliman]

It is humans that attribute function or purpose and interpret what things do as functional or purposeful. We have a strong tendency to attribute human-like agency even to inanimate objects, when we know it's inappropriate (e.g. the car doesn't like cold weather and doesn't want to start).

I know humans give function and purpose to the things they create, which is why it's counterintuitive to assume natural function and purpose wasn't given by higher agent who created it.

You choose to start from the counterintuitive assumption which states any function or purpose you find in nature can't have been given by a higher agent, rather than the intuitive assumption which states that it could have been given by a higher agent, since we know it's possible for agents to give function and purpose to things they create.

It causes confusion when an undirected, purposeless, process like evolution produces traits with selective advantage.

It's only confusing when you assume evolution has no purpose giver. Try assuming it does and you may begin to see the true meaning and purpose behind everything, not just evolution.

When viewing the outcomes, it's tempting to attribute function and purpose because that fits a familiar narrative;

You say this as if it's bad to assume function and purpose behind things that weren't created by humans, yet this is a completely natural thing to do based on our knowledge of how agents can give meaning and purpose to the things they create.

But if there's no purpose behind the spines, is it reasonable to say they have a function, as we so often do? Is the word 'function' ambiguous, or is our usage of it ambiguous? is there a difference?

This line of thinking tends to point to us not being able to trust our own perception of what was purposefully made vs what wasn't, even in what humans make. Personally, I'll stick to the most intuitive and reasonable assumptions and go from there, having faith that the truth can be known and made known.

 

[pitabread]

are you kidding? a whale sonar isnt a sonar? :

As you still seem to not be able to to distinguish between artificial and biological systems, and continue to make equivocation fallacies as a result, I am not discussing this further. I've put you on my ignore list and won't be replying to your posts anymore.

 

[Speedwell]

I know humans give function and purpose to the things they create, which is why it's counterintuitive to assume natural function and purpose wasn't given by higher agent who created it.

You choose to start from the counterintuitive assumption which states any function or purpose you find in nature can't have been given by a higher agent, rather than the intuitive assumption which states that it could have been given by a higher agent, since we know it's possible for agents to give function and purpose to things they create.

NO ONE is making that assumption. No one is assuming that natural objects have no designer,

The point to all this is, absent evidence of human (or other) intelligent manufacture, the presence of intelligent design cannot be determined.

The IDist position is that the presence of functional organization unequivocally demonstrates the presence of intelligent design. The contrary position is that it does not. Note that the contrary position does not assert that intelligent design is absent, merely that the presence of functional organization does not prove intelligent design.

 

[Chriliman]

NO ONE is making that assumption. No one is assuming that natural objects have no designer,

If they see no reason to assume a designer, then they either make no assumptions or assume no designer. You can't honestly tell me that no atheist assumes the universe and life on earth wasn't created by God.

The point to all this is, absent evidence of human (or other) intelligent manufacture, the presence of intelligent design cannot be determined.

The IDist position is that the presence of functional organization unequivocally demonstrates the presence of intelligent design. The contrary position is that it does not. Note that the contrary position does not assert that intelligent design is absent, merely that the presence of functional organization does not prove intelligent design.

I agree, the presence of functional organization does not prove intelligent design, but it does give good reason to assume intelligent design. Many atheists won't even acknowledge the legitimate reasons to assume a function or purpose giver.

 

[Speedwell]

If they see no reason to assume a designer, then they either make no assumptions or assume no designer. You can't honestly tell me that no atheist assumes the universe and life on earth wasn't created by God.

Which is a philosophical decision not related to our present discussion.

I agree, the presence of functional organization does not prove intelligent design, but it does give good reason to assume intelligent design. Many atheists won't even acknowledge the legitimate reasons to assume a function or purpose giver.

My position is that the presence of functional organization does not prove the existence of an intelligent designer. Period.

My personal view is that God is author of the universe whether one can prove the existence of a "designer" through the presence of functional organization or not. Consequently, I have no patience whatever with creationists who represent the rejection of the ID argument as a rejection of the existence of God. That is pure sophistry. It is a typical arrogant creationist ploy, "Rejecting my argument for the existence of God is the same as rejecting the existence of God."

The ID position is different. They want to convert the existence of God into a falsifiable proposition. They must prove the existence of God by with scientific evidence so they can shove their particular theology up all of our noses.

 

[Chriliman]

My position is that the presence of functional organization does not prove the existence of an intelligent designer. Period.

Agreed, and I'd add that it does give clues one way or the other.

My personal view is that God is author of the universe whether one can prove the existence of a "designer" through the presence of functional organization or not. Consequently, I have no patience whatever with creationists who represent the rejection of the ID argument as a rejection of the existence of God. That is pure sophistry. It is a typical arrogant creationist ploy, "Rejecting my argument for the existence of God is the same as rejecting the existence of God."

The ID position is different. They want to convert the existence of God into a falsifiable proposition. They must prove the existence of God by with scientific evidence so they can shove their particular theology up all of our noses.

I agree that's not a good way for creationists(people) to behave and I hope you continue to speak the truth in love to them(not saying you're not already doing that).

 

[Speedwell]

Agreed, and I'd add that it does give clues one way or the other.



I agree that's not a good way for creationists(people) to behave and I hope you continue to speak the truth in love to them(not saying you're not already doing that).

Oh, Pooh! I'm a cranky old man with a chip on my shoulder from having lived in the Bible Belt for several years.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I know humans give function and purpose to the things they create, which is why it's counterintuitive to assume natural function and purpose wasn't given by higher agent who created it.

Well, yeah, but it's the attribution of function and purpose that's in question in this context. Intuition is a poor guide to reality.

You choose to start from the counterintuitive assumption which states any function or purpose you find in nature can't have been given by a higher agent...

No; we have a vast amount of data, in multiple independent lines of evidence, indicating that the life on Earth has diversified in a tree-like hierarchy of descent from a primitive early ancestor; i.e. evidence that biological evolution has occurred.

To explain how this happened, we have a well-tested theory based on a principle that is amazingly simple and elegant, that we have observed in operation, that we have simulated, that we have used to design complex objects ourselves, and that explains and predicts the evidence we've found. It doesn't require purpose, and any function we attribute to its results is purely operational, without intent.

On the other hand, we have an untestable hypothesis or claim that invokes an unobservable, inexplicable, entity or force, purposefully operating in an unknown way so as to produce results wholly consistent with the first theory.

To most scientists and critical thinkers, it's clear that the first theory (evolution by natural selection) is the more parsimonious, has fewer unknowns, and raises no unanswerable questions; whereas the second idea is less parsimonious, is all unknowns and unanswerable questions, and since it produces results indistinguishable from the first theory, entirely redundant.

What we don't know, although we're making progress towards possible answers, is how it all started. In that respect, there are an infinite number of possible explanations, among which an unobservable, inexplicable, entity or force, operating in an unknown way, can have a place - albeit some way down the list.

However, as life consists of complex organic chemistry, and gives every indication of having become increasingly complex from very simple beginnings, the testable hypotheses that involve its origins in the organic chemistry of the complex environments of early Earth take priority. We can consider the hypothesis of an unobservable, inexplicable, entity or force, operating in an unknown way, when we have some way to test it.

It's only confusing when you assume evolution has no purpose giver. Try assuming it does and you may begin to see the true meaning and purpose behind everything, not just evolution.

It's a question of parsimony - we know evolution can produce the results we see without purpose, so there's no good reason to invoke purpose. Occam's razor, if you like.

You say this as if it's bad to assume function and purpose behind things that weren't created by humans, yet this is a completely natural thing to do based on our knowledge of how agents can give meaning and purpose to the things they create.

I didn't say it was 'bad', I said it was tempting to do so because we're strongly inclined to over-attribute agency (the HADD); I was suggesting we should be wary of making mistakes based on our innate or intuitive reactions. We are generally very susceptible to such cognitive errors, so it pays to be aware of them and take account of them. Don't invoke what isn't not necessary; as Laplace apocryphally said to Napoleon when asked where God appeared in his description of celestial mechanics, "I had no need of that hypothesis".

This line of thinking tends to point to us not being able to trust our own perception of what was purposefully made vs what wasn't, even in what humans make.

In general, it's reasonable to assume that humans make things for some reason, so more often than not, what is made will have some purpose or intent behind it. But you're right, our perception of purpose and agency is unreliable. I still get spooked when things go 'bump' at night when I'm in the house alone and the doors and windows are locked; rationally I know that there's nothing to fear, but I still get spooked. Gamblers often think that luck goes in streaks, or that a result that hasn't appeared for a while is 'overdue'; people apologise for saying how well a football player is doing, in case they spoil his streak ('Commentator's Curse'), etc. We're all bundles of misleading cognitive biases, and over-attribution of agency (and so, purpose) is a major bias. What is 'Lady Luck' but a personification of randomness as purposeful agency?

Personally, I'll stick to the most intuitive and reasonable assumptions and go from there, having faith that the truth can be known and made known.

That's your choice, but you should be aware that what's intuitive isn't always what's reasonable (the history of discoveries about the world is a history of contradictions of intuition), and that intuition is often a poor guide to the world outside of our everyday experience (often within it too).

 

[xianghua]

The flagellum is an extension of a single cell. That is quite different from a multi-cellular being making moving gears.

like this one?;

This Tiny Bug Has a Gear in its Leg

The bacterium uses molecular level forces to move the flagellum. A multi-celled creature would need some method of attaching muscles to the spinning component, which probably is not even possible.

as you can see- there i no problem to evolution if objects like gears exist. so there is no problem for evolution to evolve a car.

 

[xianghua]

It's hard to say - words are like that. When you start dealing with fringe or special cases you often need to come up with new words or categories. In science fiction, humanoid robots are called 'androids', but that implies considerably more independence than robots as conventionally understood.

If you can explain what your point or argument is without these word games, maybe we'd get somewhere.

so lets go step by step. if we will made a robot that made from organic components like proteins and dna. you will agree to consider it as a robot in this case?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

so lets go step by step. if we will made a robot that made from organic components like proteins and dna. you will agree to consider it as a robot in this case?

On consideration, no. I think the word should be reserved for non-biological machines. YMMV.

 

[lesliedellow]

as you can see- there i no problem to evolution if objects like gears exist. so there is no problem for evolution to evolve a car.

When are you going to stop making the same nonsensical statement? There are fewer stars in the sky than the number of times the diierences between cars and biological systems have been pointed out to you.